Like I said before, you can cut their pay, but don't ever, ever kick them in the teeth

Workers who help Canadians obtain employment insurance benefits are demanding that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley apologize and resign for implying they have caused the backlogs that are forcing some jobless people to wait months for their first cheque.

The Canada Employment and Immigration Union (CEIU) said Thursday that about 2,500 of its members have filed grievances against Ms. Finley over a letter she wrote in November to the Charlottetown Guardian.

Cut jobs, attack pensions and benefits they fought for and won fairly, yes, they'll grumble for a long time before they act.  But blame them publicly for the elected government's screw-ups on top of all that, try to make them the villain in how cuts to services affect Canadians,  well, back at you  - 2,500 times over.

Good for you, folks at EI.  We add our many voices to yours.

How about we just call it the harper Service of Canada™?

Why not since: well researched advice by public servants who make recommendations on what’s best for the public are constantly overridden by harper’s political bag boys; public service resources are used forpolitical partisan endeavours; communications to the public are controlledby harper; communications to the public are not intended to inform the public of reality but rather are micro-managed by harper to avoid embarrassing him  and his own; non-partisan appointments are becoming obsolete;  and, public servants are forced to attend partisan functions for harper’s drones who are friendless...

The master strategist isn’t just redefining Canadian identity, he’s redefining our rights and the accountability of our public service – something created as a non-partisan body to serve us without political interference.

But we’ll leave the word “Canada” in there since Canadians are the ones footing the bill for the harper Service.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say public servants are harper servants...yet.  It’ll take a little while – but no as long as one might expect – for the pressure from the harper appointees and those they squeeze near the top to filter down to the bulk of public servants who still believe in their mandates of serving the public honestly and in a non-partisan fashion.

But as harper takes over more control through bullying and ignoring legislation of what is supposed to be an independent body as our service, the very concept of independence will disappear from documents, speeches, communications, internal meetings until public servants forget they were once public servants and go about their jobs believing and never questioning that they are political servants.

And the public?  Who will be looking out for us?

No one.

Last week, the Citizen reported DND will spend more than $600 million on preparing the Nortel site to be its main location in Ottawa...on top of the $208 million the government spent to purchase the Carling Avenue campus... the documents show DND officials were worried last year about how the renovation costs would be perceived. “Media, parliamentarians and Canadians will be focused on the cost to taxpayers for the acquisition of the Campus and the subsequent retro-fit costs,” noted a DND strategy document.

Such concerns were solved when Deputy Minister Robert Fonberg stepped in. Fonberg’s assistant wrote that the deputy minister was concerned about telling the public about the cost. According to an email, Fonberg asked, “Why are we using the $623m(illion) fit up cost? It is without context and will be a lightning rod!”  The cost was removed from public documents about the Nortel purchase.

Minimizing risk to the Conservative government about issues that might raise questions has become a hallmark of federal communications strategies, say critics.

More muzzling?

The harper government™ has released, through Treasury Board,  rules for public servants on use of social media. 

"We’re basically saying it’s ok to dialogue with the public, it’s ok to open up government information, it’s ok to be more productive by sharing information, but there is a framework you are going to have to develop." - clement

But open government advocate David Eaves said the rules don’t jibe with Clement’s message about improving the flow of information.  "This entire document is about improving the control of information," he said.

But while the rules may help persuade managers to let their employees go online, fear of running afoul of policy will make people’s lives more difficult, Eaves said.

Eaves says the new rules will slow communications to a crawl as departments struggle to make sure any messages distributed via the Net will be subject to far too much scrutiny.

Communications

1.      Verify that the planned Web 2.0 initiative is congruent with Government of Canada themes and messages, as well as departmental communications' and consultations' objectives and requirements. Privy Council Office should be engaged early in the process to ensure alignment of Web 2.0 activities with Government of Canada communication and consultation priorities;

As this applies, I believe, to all government departments and agencies, this gives harper that foot into controlling independent agencies’ communications products, something he has been trying to do for some time.  PCO takes an oversight position, here.

Another area of concern is how the new rules address public servants’ private use of social media.

For Professional Networking & Personal Use:

1. Your obligations as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service apply at all times, particularly if your employer could be identified through your use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

Simply put, anytime public servants express themselves publicly, they must make it very clear they are speaking as a private citizen, and not on behalf of their department.  However, perception is recognized as playing a part, so even a disclaimer does not protect public servants from speaking if it comes out that they are public servants.  That’s problematic since it would only take exposing the person’s identity and job to give an abusive government an excuse to shut down public servants who are occasionally critical of the elected government.

2. By virtue of your employment, information shared through Web 2.0 tools and services may be perceived as an official Government of Canada position rather than your own opinion. You should therefore clearly state in your account profile that the views expressed are your own and not those of your employer. However, it is important to note that such a disclaimer does not absolve you of your obligations as a public servant, including your duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada… An employee's public commentary (including online activity on blogs and other social media platforms) about an organization, including its minister, is subject to scrutiny under the duty of loyalty requirement.

What are the boundaries of duty and loyalty?  Will public servants be willing to test these under a government that treats any kind of dissent as criminal?  Will they have to be concerned about being spied upon?  Are they now more apprehensive over the changes to online surveillance Toews wants to implement?   

Will public servants place their loyalty to serving the public before heavy-handed policies passed down by a secretive, repressive government?  Is not the first loyalty of public servants to the public?

Only publicly available information may be shared externally, unless you are specifically authorized otherwise. Always check permissions required to reproduce or distribute any information, including Government of Canada content such as illustrations, photographs, videos, audio, logos, trade-marks or wordmarks.

There’s a troubling contradiction there.  While publicly available info can be shared, that right can be over-run by…who?  A Minister?  A Deputy Head?  A manager?  On what basis?  Already, this latest set of rules contrains public servants from using the same resources as any other private citizen.

“Duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada” comes up several times in the rules and seems to override the public servants’ rights as private citizens to express opinions or criticize.

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;

But what if your employer is acting inappropriately and this has become information available to anyone, such as the case of Clement and the G-20 funds, or political aides interfering with ATIP requests, or the AG reports that expose lack of transparency and waste of funds?  Would criticizing Clement’s actions and lack of accountability be considered a violation of the rules if the public servant posting as a private citizen works for TBS?

There is a single line that offers public servants some small protection against abuse of power by political bosses -

·         public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

 

However, that statement is immediately followed by more reinforcement of “duty of loyalty.”

·       

  In  In Canada's system of parliamentary democracy, public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This includes refraining from any activity that could compromise the efforts of Government organizations to deliver on their mandate.

Eaves is right.  These new rules are more to control communications than encourage them, and this extends even to a public servant’s right to express themselves as private citizens.

Bloodless coup

Some outcry over Senate stacking, but not a whole lot of outrage over the takeover of our public service.  Scary, that, since an independent public service is supposed to make sure our tax dollars are well spent on our behalf and not to forward the goals of any particular political group, and to protect us from people and groups with self-serving agendas, among other things.

BACK in Canada’s 2006 election campaign, Stephen Harper said that even if his Conservative party won a majority in the House of Commons, he would not have “absolute power”, because the senators, civil servants and judges appointed by the Liberals would hold him in check. During the two Conservative minority governments that followed, he dealt with the Senate and the bureaucracy, using his powers to appoint, hire, fire and sideline to create a Conservative majority in the Senate and slot amenable bureaucrats into senior posts. After winning his long-sought-after Conservative majority in May, he is now turning to the judiciary.  (emphasis mine)

When senior bureaucrats serve political masters rather than the public, we no longer have an impartial, independent public service working for us.  Forget about transparency and accountability.  It becomes a branch of the ruling political party paid for by us, and will bow to their new masters as their main goal is to forward that party's agenda and save that political power from embarrassment, even if it means lying to the public.

Conservatives: in it for themselves

Impolitical writes about the poor optics of giving political aides in ministerial offices  nice bonuses, pay increases to match public servants (whose wages they constantly deride), and generous severance pay if they find themselves out of work.

 

This at a time when harper is constantly going on about cutting the fat in the federal government and TBD holds meetings with Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on how to cut public servants’ pay and benefits.

Of at least equal concern is something else the article brings up:

But ministers will have a little more money to play with since the government has decreed that their offices should no longer have to foot the bill for international travel by ministers, their staff and parliamentary secretaries. Those costs will now be absorbed by government departments instead.

Harper has cut departmental budgets, plans to make more cuts to them, but is shoving that horrendous cost onto them. 

Now the Ministers can make it look like they are spending little on travel and lay the blame onto departments, claiming this was all something the department required.  We know Ministers like to hide such costs. 

   

It is naive to believe that Ministers will not abuse this new policy.  Many trips made by MPs are used for partisan reasons with only the weakest of justification linking it to their role as Minister.

So once again, as expenses are transferred to federal departments, how does harper propose to make cuts to them?

The sacrificial lamb has a name.

Michelle D'Auray, public servant.

The Harper government claims a senior bureaucrat gave it the go-ahead to avoid rules governing the look and feel of its Economic Action Plan website.

Right.  Like I said before, harper & Co. can't get rid of all public servants.  They need a few to kick around and blame for their own stupidity and corrupt actions.

Of course harper and Hang-'em-high family man Vic have nothing to back that claim.  In fact, the paper-trail clearly shows that the TB public servant team leader advised against it.

As current president of TB, Stockie Day is trying to justify Toews and harper's actions, claiming Michelle D'Auray, secretary to TB recommended that the exemption be granted.

But guess what?

Day’s office and the Prime Minister’s Office did not respond to requests to produce the d’Auray document.

This blame the public servant is just the latest in harper's half-assed attempt to brush away criticism over violating very clear TB rules that forbid using federal government sites and resources for partisan purposes.   Earlier on, in committee, they tried to say things like the use of Google Map hampered their ability to maintain a common look and feel.

Wow.  Odd how inserting a Google Map function can throw off an entire design, create a new one, and add in a youtube clip of harper playing the piano.

Some people may not think that this particular abuse of tax dollars, and politicizing what is supposed to be a non-partisan public service is no big deal, but it is far from an isolated incident.  We've been paying for many such CPC/harper promotions, and our federal public service has been used as harper's personal marketing team since he took power: oversized checks carrying the CPC logo, public service websites linking to that tiresome piano playing video, unrelated sites linking to federal budgets, the economic action plan, harper's photo popping up all over the place, public servants used to push the economic action plan ad signs, partisan statements on public service sites...

Where is the clout to enforce accountability on politicians who brazenly thumb their noses at the public while stealing their money to do so?

Every time we do nothing more than shake our heads and say, well, it sucks, but that's politics, we give these corrupt actions our stamp of approval through our simple silence.

For all the griping about taxes, you would think more Canadians would be royally miffed at having any political party dip into our pockets to pay for their own marketing needs - and using those tax dollars to misrepresent their deeds, as well.

Stockwell does math...poorly

Nearly $1.7-billion in promised cuts to government spending will come almost entirely from attrition in the public service, suggesting a relatively pain-free opening round as Ottawa begins to trim its record deficit.

Uh-huh.  Didn’t believe it in March, don’t believe it now.  Neither does Carleton University economics professor Frances Woolley.

“I think [the federal government] is being optimistic in saying they’re going to be able to make it through attrition," she said.

And this is why -

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day...said about 11,000 public servants vacate positions each year – mainly through retirement – and not hiring replacements will be Ottawa’s main source of savings.

Even if exactly 11,000 jobs were left unfilled, finding $1.7-billion in savings assumes the average compensation of the departing workers is $155,000, which she said is high. (No kidding!!!  The average is 68,000.00 and that includes executives) Further, pension obligations mean a retired public servant is not off the books. Internal transfers will also be a challenge, she said, because retirees are often leaving senior positions while cuts will likely affect more junior workers.

But hey, it’s a good excuse for harper to butcher his favourite kicking dog. 

And this affects non-public servants as well.  By not replacing 11,000 retiring workers, services, quality, and even efficiency will suffer through lack of sufficient staffing.  Like here.

A few good men and women

Kelly Egan wonders why we rarely see public servants giving interviews.

POGGE notices that the turnover rate in the public service is rather high.

I'd agree.

Fired or dismissed:

Luc Pomerleau, biologist, Food Inspection Agency for whistleblowing.

Douglas Tipple, consultant, PWGSC, set up then fired for his advice on real estate.

David Rotor, consultant, PWGSC, set up then fired for his advice on real estate.

Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor, phased out.

Alan Leadbeater, Canadian Information Commission, dismissed.

Paul Kennedy, chair, Complaints Commission for the RCMP, term not renewed, mid-report

Peter Tinsley, chair, Military Police Complaints Commission, term not renewed, mid-report

Adrian Measner, Canadian Wheat Board, fired for disagreeing with Harper plans

Johanne Gelinas, Environment Commissioner, dismissed for a scathing report

Linda Keen, CNsc, fired for doing her job

RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, dismissed, apparently for speaking in favour of the long gun registry

Pat Stogran, ombudsman for veterans, dismissed for doing his job

Others who were probably forced out or encouraged to leave:

Robert Marleau, Information Commissioner, stonewalled, resigned

Jean-Guy Fleury, chair, Immigration & Refugee Board, resigned out of frustration

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Elections Canada, stonewalled, resigned while investigating the CONs

Smeared, muzzled, or set up:

Richard Colvin, diplomat, attacked viciously for telling the truth as part of his job

Rémi Beauregard, Rights & Democracy, died, heart attack after cruel attacks from Harper appointees

Louise Arbour, UN High Com. for Human Rights, was refused support on 2^nd term, publicly rebuffed

Kevin Page, publicly rebuffed repeatedly, budget cut back

Munir Sheikh, resigned because he refused to lie for the Harper government

This list does not include those anonymous public servants who may have been fired or forced out for refusing to violate their non-partisan mandates but never made the news.

Over two years ago - May 2008, we were warned of this purge:

Information Commissioner Robert Marleau told The Hill Times recently that the Harper government has been quietly drafting about 25 government policies that impact on the rights of officers of Parliament, and that it has been happening without their knowledge or input.

So, fellow Canadians, are you ready to oust this Harper government, or are you going to wait until the public service becomes just another tool of Harper's to violate your rights, lie to you, deny you the right to know what they and the elected government are up to?

It's not a bunch of hungry, tired Tamil refugees you should be afraid of.

Update: a few more, thanks to the Vancouver Sun

Steve Sullivan, victims of crime ombudsman, term was not renewed, publicly took issue with the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda.

Sheridan Scott, Competition Bureau head, ran afoul environment minister, quit after being told her appointment would not be renewed.

Bernard Shapiro, ethics commissioner, clashed repeatedly with Harper and quit suddenly. 

Another thanks to Cathie :

John Reid, Information Commissioner, refused extension to follow up on recommendations by Gomery, faced lies in court he was abusing his powers

More from Beijing York: 

Deanna Allen , VP Canadian Wheat Board, fired by Harper appointee Arason following Measner's firing.


Andrew Okulitch, scientist with the Geological Survey (although he was eventually re-instated... back in the day that Harper was pretending to be moderate), for lampooning an order to call Stephen Harper's Tory government "Canada's new government'' is back on the job.

Who should the public service bureaucrats be loyal to?

Not, as James Travers says, the government of the day.

Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:

Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.

No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.

It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.

For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.

If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.

Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:

Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.

The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.

Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.

After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.

Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.

Maybe a public servant living in that other Canada wrote this.

You know, the Canada Harper says is better now than four years ago?

“The Prime Minister’s action has not only brought additional talent and expertise to the Senate; it has greatly strengthened our efforts to move forward on our tackling-crime agenda.”

“The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate, most notably by gutting Bill C-15 – a bill proposing mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, and a key part of the government’s efforts to fight organized crime.”
“These five new Senators support all our measures,” said Minister Paradis. “And today, we ask the opposition parties to listen to the victims of crime and to support our measures, too.”

That is part of what appears on Justice Canada’s site.

Like all federal departments and agencies staffed by public servants, the website is supposed to be non-partisan.  At all times.

This is important, because if an elected government is allowed to use it to push its ideology, promote its agenda, or attack the opposition, there is a clear conflict of interest and the very real possibility of presenting biassed information.

Nor should tax payer funded sites such as these be used to promote the interests or attack ads of any one party.

This time, all of us tax payers have paid for this partisan attack ad posted by the Conservatives.  Tolerate this, and next year, we could all be paying for similar ads for the Liberal party.  No elected government can be allowed to manipulate public service websites, or those sites become nothing more than political propaganda.  Useless as a source of information to the public.

Public servants, especially those working in communications, understand this.  That is why it is near to impossible that a public servant wrote that conservative message with the intentions of posting it on Justice Canada’s site.

Furthermore, since the statement made on that site is not accurate considering the Conservatives themselves have delayed and even killed their own crime bills, it is even less believable that a public servant wrote it.  That communications person would have done their research, aimed for accuracy, knowing full well that their words will be closely reviewed and edited by several managers.

With several levels of public service managers reviewing the message, errors would have been caught and it is impossible that the partisan nature of the message would not have been caught and addressed.  Unless the message came from the top.  The political top.

"This is a concerted effort on the part of this government to politicize the public service," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "This is not the first time, it is reprehensible and it has to stop." Jennings lodged her complaint with Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters over a press release posted on the Justice Department's website

...She wants it removed and Wouters to investigate whether public servants wrote, approved and posted it, or if it was prepared by political staff and posted under their orders. She also wants to know if any bureaucrats objected.

An investigation sounds appropriate.  But with attack after attack on public servants who have been brutalized for trying to do their jobs, will any come forth?  I hope so, but then it’s easy for me to say since I’m not the one risking my job.

More public servants are coming forth, but with the threat of cutbacks in the public service, and a scarcety of jobs in the private sector, they take a great risk in offending their political Minister.

This is why I keep saying we need to support our public servants when they stand up against those who would rather they remain silent.

They work for us.  We should help them do so without threats or harassment.